# Prindable v. Gadfrey

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154321

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154321

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LUKE ALEXANDER PRINDABLE, )
#462931, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 21-cv-00696-JPG
)
DR. GADFREY, )
JAYCENA, )
R.N. TOM, )
CITY OF BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS, )
JOHN DOE, and )
NURSE BONNIE, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Luke Prindable, an inmate at St. Clair County Jail, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80.
(Docs. 1, pp. 1-20). During his detention at the Jail, Plaintiff claims that he was given a cocktail
of medications that caused stomach pain, diarrhea, and bloody stools. Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse
Bonnie failed to inform him about the risks of adverse side effects when prescribing the
medications. The medical staff simply assured him that the medications would make him feel
better. Plaintiff claims the defendants poisoned him, and he seeks money damages from them.
The Complaint is now subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim for relief, or requests money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief
must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The allegations are liberally construed at this stage.
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint
The Complaint includes the following allegations (Doc. 1, pp. 1-14): During his detention

at the Jail in March and April 2021, Plaintiff was prescribed a cocktail of medications for pain and
depression that included ibuprofen, acetaminophen, mirtazapine (Remeron),1 and lithium.2 Not
long after, Plaintiff began suffering from severe stomach pain, cramping, and bloody stools.
Plaintiff claims that no one ever warned him of these side effects when prescribing the
medications. When Dr. Gadfrey prescribed him mirtazapine (Remeron) and lithium, he offered
no information about either drug’s side effects. (Id. at 1, 9). Dr. Gadfrey just told Plaintiff that
the pills would help his depression. (Id.). When Nurse Bonnie provided him with ibuprofen, she
offered no information about its adverse side effects. (Id. at 8, 14). The nurse simply told Plaintiff
the ibuprofen would help him. (Id.). She then failed to take his vital signs, accurately record his
symptoms, or address his complaints. (Id. at 11).

Others refused to address his symptoms as well. When Plaintiff asked EMT Jaycena and
RN Tom to send him to a hospital and pump his stomach, they refused. (Id. at 2, 6, 11). This was
despite his reports of severe stomach pain and obviously bloody stools. (Id. at 11). However,
when he reported his symptoms to “Dr. M,”3 Plaintiff was switched from ibuprofen to
acetaminophen. (Id. at 9). He does not indicate whether his symptoms subsided.
Plaintiff requested information about each drug’s side effects and, only then, learned that
the adverse side effects could be dangerous and even life-threatening. (Id. at 11). Dr. Gadfrey and

1 Mirtazapine (Remeron) is an antidepressant that is used to treat major depressive disorder in adults.
(See https://www.drugs.com/search) (site last visited Oct. 6, 2021).
2 Lithium is a mood stabilizer that is used to treat or control the manic episodes of bipolar disorder. (Id.).
3 Dr. M. is not a defendant in this action, and Plaintiff asserts no claims against him.
Nurse Bonnie never provided this information before administering the drugs. (Id. at 6). In fact,
Plaintiff believes they were attempting to murder him, and he suspects the lithium pills were
actually filled with baking soda and lye. (Id. at 6, 11). Plaintiff now sues Dr. Gadfrey, Nurse
Bonnie, EMT Jaycena, RN Tom, the City of Belleville, and John Doe (unknown pharmaceutical

company that supplies the Jail) for money damages. (Id.).
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiff lists the City of Belleville and John Doe (pharmaceutical company) as defendants,
but he sets forth no allegations against either one in the body of the Complaint. Naming a
defendant in the case caption is not enough to state a clam against that person or entity. Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 3313, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). To pursue a claim for money damages under § 1983,
a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law violated rights secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). A private
pharmaceutical company, like John Doe (unknown pharmaceutical company), is not a “person”
for purposes of § 1983 liability here, and Plaintiff points to no policy, custom, or practice of the

company that caused the deprivations at issue. Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782 (7th
Cir. 2014) (private medical corporation may exhibit deliberate indifference through an
unconstitutional policy or practice that causes a constitutional violation to occur). A municipality,
like the City of Belleville, cannot be held vicariously liable for the constitutional torts of its
employees under § 1983, and Plaintiff refers to no policy, custom, or practice of the municipality
that caused a constitutional deprivation to occur. Monell v. Dept. of Social Security Servs., 436
U.S. 658 (1978). Given this, John Doe (pharmaceutical company) and City of Belleville shall be
dismissed without prejudice from this action because the Complaint fails to state a claim against
these defendants.
Discussion
Turning to the allegations in the pro se Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
designate the following enumerated counts:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie for
denying Plaintiff informed consent when they prescribed him a cocktail of
medications that includes ibuprofen, acetaminophen, mirtazapine
(Remeron), and lithium in March and April 2021 without providing an
explanation of the adverse side effects.

Count 2: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse
Bonnie for failing to treat Plaintiff’s adverse side effects (stomach pain,
cramps, and bloody stools) in March and April 2021.

Count 3: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against EMT Jaycena and RN Tom
for refusing to send Plaintiff for treatment at a hospital or to pump his
stomach when he complained of adverse side effects that included severe
stomach pain, cramps, and bloody stools in March and April 2021.

Count 4: FTCA claim against Defendants for prescribing Plaintiff medications
without informing him of adverse side effects and then failing to treat him
for the same in March and April 2021.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.4
Count 1
The Fourteenth Amendment guards against the deprivation of liberty or property without
due process of law. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-22 (1997). The Supreme Court
of the United States has recognized a “general liberty interest in refusing medical treatment.”
Cruzan v. Dir. Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990); Vitekv. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 494
(1980); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979). Courts of Appeals have likewise recognized
an inmate’s limited right to informed consent for treatment. See, e.g., Poban v. Wright, 459 F.3d
241, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006); White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1990); Rainwater v.

4 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Alarcon, 268 F. App’x 531, 534 (9th Cir. 2008). Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
joined all other circuits in holding that prisoners have a Fourteenth Amendment right to informed
consent. Knight v. Grossman, 942 F.3d 336, 343-44 (7th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 233,
208 L.Ed.2d 15 (2020). The Court observed that “[t]he right to refuse medical treatment carries

with it an implied right to the information necessary to make an informed decision about whether
to refuse the treatment.” Id.
A prisoner’s informed consent claim is now evaluated under a two-step framework.
Knight, 942 F.3d at 343-44. First, the prisoner must demonstrate that his right to informed consent
was violated. (Id.). To do so, he must prove the following: (1) he was deprived of information
that a reasonable patient would deem necessary to make an informed decision about his medical
treatment; (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s right to refuse
treatment; and (3) if the prisoner had received the information, he would have refused the
treatment. Id. If the prisoner establishes that his right to informed consent was violated, the court
must next balance the prisoner’s right to informed consent against countervailing state interests.

Id. Liability only arises where the prisoner’s right outweighs the state’s interests. See, e.g., Poban
v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (“If prison officials, including doctors, identify
situations in which they reasonably believe that treatment is required, notwithstanding the
prisoner’s asserted right to refuse it, the right must give way.”). At this stage, the allegations
support an informed consent claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie. Accordingly, Count 1
shall receive further review against both defendants.
Counts 2 and 3
The applicable legal standard for Counts 2 and 3 depends on Plaintiff’s status as a pretrial
detainee or convicted prisoner in March and April 2021. If he was a pretrial detainee, these claims
are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s objective unreasonableness standard articulated in
Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018). If he was a convicted person, these
claims are controlled by the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard articulated in
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Either way, the Court finds that the allegations articulate

a claim against Dr. Gadfrey and Nurse Bonnie in Count 2 and against EMT Jaycena and RN Tom
in Count 3 for the objectively unreasonable or deliberately indifferent denial of medical treatment.
Plaintiff’s legal status and the applicable legal standard can be sorted out as the case proceeds.
Count 4
The FTCA claim shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Act authorizes “civil actions on
claims against the United States, for money damages . . . for . . . personal injury or death caused
by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting
within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff
did not name the United States as a defendant, and his claims do not arise from misconduct of
federal officials. Given this, Count 4 shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.
Pending Motions
A. Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice, as
he has described no efforts to find an attorney on his own before asking the Court to recruit counsel
for him. Plaintiff should contact at least three attorneys or firms and request representation in this
case. If his requests are denied and he is otherwise unable to represent himself, Plaintiff may file
a new motion in this case. When doing so, he should provide copies of all letters sent to and
received from those attorneys or firms that denied him representation. Alternatively, he should
attach a list of the attorneys/firms he contacted, indicate the dates of each contact, state whether
he sought representation for this case, and briefly describe the response he received.
B. Motion for Copies (Doc. 26)
The Motion for Copies is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request

for a courtesy copy of his Complaint is GRANTED. However, his requests for a wellness check
for suspected food contamination and for vegetables with his meals are DENIED as being
unrelated to the claims asserted or relief sought in this case. See Oswald v. Dep’t of Corr., 17-CV-
1437-PP, 2018 WL 4623583, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2018) (citing Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); Neuroscience, Inc. v. Forrest, No. 12-cv-813-bbc, 2013 WL
6331346, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2013) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because it
raised issues outside scope of complaint)). Plaintiff may file a motion for preliminary injunctive
relief in the lawsuit where he raises these claims, or he may bring a new lawsuit to address these
claims in the first instance.
Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Docs. 1) survives screening, as follows:
COUNTS 1 and 2 will proceed against Defendants DR. GADFREY and NURSE BONNIE, and
COUNT 3 will proceed against EMT JAYCENA and RN TOM. These claims are DISMISSED
without prejudice against all other defendants not named in connection with the claims.
IT IS ORDERED that COUNT 4 is DISMISSED with prejudice against ALL
DEFENDANTS for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Moreover,
Defendants CITY OF BELLEVILLE and JOHN DOE (pharmaceutical company) are
DISMISSED without prejudice because the Complaint fails to state any claim for relief against
them.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Defendants CITY OF
BELLEVILLE and JOHN DOE (pharmaceutical company) as parties in CM/ECF and SEND
a courtesy copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1) to Plaintiff for his records. Because this suit addresses
one or more medical claims, the Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to enter the standard

qualified protective order under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants DR. GADFREY, NURSE BONNIE,
EMT JAYCENA, and RN TOM: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service
of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to
mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint (Docs. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to each
Defendant’s place of employment. If any Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service
of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk
shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require
the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with that defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, his
or her last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed
above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only
by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the
Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this
Merits Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, even though his

application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 10/8/2021
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Notice

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit
and serve them with a copy of your First Amended Complaint. After service has been achieved,
the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your First Amended Complaint.
It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answer,
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of the defendants have filed
answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines,
discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the
defendants before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to
respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will
generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this
time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10154321. Public record. Not legal advice.